When 'Consensus' Doesn't Count

It's a funny thing about "consensus." Often we are told that because society has reached a "consensus" on a given topic, debate about it should be all but extinguished.

Those who are not part of the "consensus" are often ridiculed and marginalized. Those who are part of the "consensus" feel perfectly justified in imposing their view on the rest of the country — even the world.

For example, next month there's a United Nations convention in Copenhagen at which the powers that be plan to reinvent the way the world is governed on the basis of a "consensus" that man-made, catastrophic climate change is an imminent threat to the planet.

Of course, first you have to ask yourself: "Is there really a consensus among the world's population that man's activity on the planet presents an imminent threat to survival?"

The answer, of course, is no. Not only is there no consensus, I'm not even aware of any effort to conduct scientific surveys to determine if there is consensus.

The second question you have to ask is this: "Would it matter if there were such a consensus?"

The answer, of course, is no. It wouldn't matter because the world is not and should not be governed on the basis of consensus. In fact, the world shouldn't be governed at all — unless or when God Himself descends from heaven with a shout and imposes His own righteous, all-knowing judgments upon it.

Yet, next month, we're told, because of "consensus," decisions are going to be made at this U.N. convention that will affect the lives of every man, woman and child on the planet — and we will take some significant steps toward global governance.

So be very wary when people cite "consensus" as a reason for doing anything. It's a trick. It's political sleight of hand. It's a con game — much like "man-made, catastrophic climate change." Neither one is real — and it wouldn't matter if they were. Both are merely excuses for actions that others want to impose on the rest of us.

"Consensus" is also used as an excuse right here in the United States to indoctrinate your children into "climate change" hysteria.

I doubt there is a public school anywhere in America not teaching "man-made, catastrophic climate change" as fact. How do they get away with it? Well, they'll tell you there's a "consensus" among scientists on the subject.

Is that true? No. If it were true, would it be justification to teach children it is an established fact? No.

After all, scientists have been wrong in the past. There was a "consensus" once among scientists that the world was flat. There was a "consensus" once among scientists that bleeding ailing patients would cure them of various illnesses. There was a "consensus" once among scientists that the sun revolved around Earth.

So, clearly, "consensus" — even among the most enlightened scientists of the day — can be and has been wrong. Yet, what strikes me as most annoying about the use of "consensus" in political, spiritual and scientific debates is that it is only used when it is convenient to use.

For instance, every public-opinion survey ever done in America on the subject of creation shows vast majorities believe God created the world. But try using "consensus" as a justification for teaching that in a public school. Also, vast majorities of Americans support prayer in public schools, even 50 years after it was supposedly banned by two Supreme Court decisions. But try using "consensus" as a justification for bringing it back.

In addition, vast majorities of Americans celebrate Christmas every year. But try using "consensus" as a justification for official celebrations of the holiday in public schools. "Consensus" then is a phony argument used by government and government-friendly elitists to manipulate the population into doing what they're told.

America was not founded as a land of "consensus." It was founded as a land of freedom, based on limited government and the rule of law, not men. It was founded as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. It was founded as a country, imperfect as it is and was, that attempted to protect the rights of minorities rather than to allow tyrannical majorities to run roughshod over them.

Remember that whenever "consensus" is cited as primary reason for draconian, life-altering, world-changing actions. It usually isn't true, and it wouldn't matter if it were true.

To find out more about Joseph Farah and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM